Contracts · MBE-tested
United States v. B & H Dist. Corp. et al.
413 U.S. 909·Supreme Court of the United States·1973
Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm. Mr. Justice Brennan, joined by Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall, dissents and would affirm the judgment of dismissal of the indictment charging appellees with a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1462. See Miller v. United States, ante, p. 47.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 72-853.
United States v. B & H Dist. Corp. et al.
[MAJORITY]
Appeal from D. C. W. D. Wis. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Miller v. California, ante, p. 15; Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, ante, p. 49; Kaplan v. California, ante, p. 115; United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels Film, ante, p. 123; United States v. Orito, ante, p. 139; Heller v. New York, ante, p. 483; Roaden v. Kentucky, ante, p. 496; and Alexander v. Virginia, ante, p. 836.
Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm. Mr. Justice Brennan, joined by Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall, dissents and would affirm the judgment of dismissal of the indictment charging appellees with a violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1462. See Miller v. United States, ante, p. 47.